Allpar Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just curious as it looks like a few other companies have their direct injected 4-bangers out on the market already, and they're fantastic.

I'm in the market to buy a new daily driver, and I was considering the Dart GT for a while, but after looking at the pricing and spec sheets on the Mazda 3s, I can't see how I would enjoy driving the GT more. Of course I'd prefer to wait for a test drive, but just spec to spec:

Dart GT
3297lbs
184hp @ 6250rpms
172tq @ 4800rpms
21/30mpg city/hwy

2014 Mazda 3s (available in Sept.)
3002lbs
184hp @ 5700rpms (up 17hp from 2013 2.5L)
185tq @ 3250rpms (up 17tq from 2013 2.5L)
28/37mpg city/hwy (up 6/8mpg from 2013 2.5L)

Well equipped, both have pretty similar feature sets at the $25-26k price point, although the Dart has more interior room and a much better touchscreen setup. However, I think the engine performance and efficiency marks alone just make the Dart a no-go for me.

It's not that the 2.4L Tigershark is a bad engine, but the new DI 2.5L in the Mazda3 is really amazingly good, the fuel economy is fantastic for the kind of power it puts out. Lots of torque at a fairly low RPM, and fuel economy within spitting distance of the best in class drivetrains that have significantly less performance.


Imagine the 2.4L Tigershark with another 15-20hp, another 15-20tq with a lower rpm peak, and providing 20% better gas mileage. That would push the Dart right past the whole compact class in performance while providing excellent fuel economy nearly on par with the 2.0L Tigershark, and would make a fantastic base engine for the Avenger and 200.

Anyway, I know, engineering engineering engineering, I know nothing about it. I'm told it's hard. Just fancy thinking here and wishing the Dart had an engine that would make choosing it a no-brainer in the compact class for a driving enthusiast like myself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
491 Posts
Those Skyactiv engines from Mazda are great aren't they? Chrysler should license the technology from Mazda because Mazda could use the money, lol.
 

·
Active Jeeper
Joined
·
31,129 Posts
AlfaCuda said:
I wonder why the Alfa 1750 Tbi is not going into the Dart? Good for 235bhp and 340Nm in the Giulietta.
Emissions?
Cost?
Interesting question however.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill Sample

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,244 Posts
I'd assume cost and keeping it exclusive to Alfa.

That said... I am not at all convinced the WGE was worth saving. I keep wondering what would have happened had they restarted with the Pentastar ... I guess the timeframe doesn't work. TigerShark still keeps seeming like, well, the Chrysler 200.

I am really hoping Chrysler has a crash four-cylinder program running, with Willem Weertman and some of the old Ramchargers crew coming in now and then to guide the hands of the youngsters...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
I agree, Dave. What's the expected lifespan left of the 2.4 engines? Direct injection isn't a minor R&D cost. What gains (if any) would the older World engines see from that? I think it'd be much better in the long-run to go "Back to the drawing board" and design a new 4 cylinder (maybe one that an inline 3 can also be based on?) with DI, MA2 and possibly turbo. The R&D would be more than the world engine short term but a lot longer useable lifespan & wider vehicle lineup could be used. Like how the Pentastar replaced all other 6 cylinder engines in Chrysler vehicles, a new 4 could be used across the FIAT line saving that much more time, effort etc.
 

·
Vaguely badass...
Joined
·
43,887 Posts
Is the WGE still using Hyundai-design blocks? Are those Hyundai-sourced, too? If so, is there perhaps a contract that has not been fulfilled or has ended yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Aren't the Hyundai/Kia engines based on the same block design? They have DI in their motors, why can't Chrysler borrow or develop a similar system for its world engines?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,474 Posts
MoparNorm said:
Emissions?
Cost?
Interesting question however.
The new 1750 is in the fine tuning stages of development as we speak. Getting ready to go into the 4C and allegedly the slightly revisited Giulietta that will be presented later this year.

I'm sure a slightly bored out 2.0 will find its way through the company-wide product portfolio, provided that the final stiker price of the vehicle it will go into can offset the cost of DI+VVT+Turbo+all aluminum construction.

Either that or some pared down version with regular injection and turbo or some other less expensive tech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
I think Mazda has the right idea right now with their 4-cylinders. Both are super efficient and both are being used across the model line, the new Mazda 6 in fact only offers the 2.5L and no other engine choice right now.

If a powerful enough, efficient enough 4-cylinder is built, it can be applied across a wide range of vehicles, as a base engine for mid-size and up and as a performance engine for the compact and below.

I know it's not cheap, I know it's not easy, but I'd hate to see Dodge be the last company in the market to do it. The Tigershark may be a fantastic engine relative to it's competitors in the non-DI class of engines, but it just doesn't seem to stand up to all the other (Mazda, Hyundai, Honda, etc.) direct injected 4-cylinders that push significantly more torque at lower rpms, while returning better fuel economy.

If it weren't for the wide availability of those fantastic new DI 4-cylinders, the Dart would be #1 on my shopping list today.
 

·
Plymouth Makes It
Joined
·
8,107 Posts
I
though that the poor quality of US gasoline fouled direct injection. Did GM ever cure their issue? my point is new engines cost $$$$$, should Chrysler join the engine of the month club?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,727 Posts
jerseyjoe said:
I
though that the poor quality of US gasoline fouled direct injection. Did GM ever cure their issue? my point is new engines cost $$$$$, should Chrysler join the engine of the month club?
I believe the issue is with some of the DI engines is carbon buildup on the intake valve which causes idle problems and power loss.
GM claims to have solved the issue with the new V8 line which was designed with DI in mind from the start.
But yes, bottom line is there is not only a cost issue with DI but a potential reliability issue if not designed right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
srt4evah said:
Just curious as it looks like a few other companies have their direct injected 4-bangers out on the market already, and they're fantastic.

I'm in the market to buy a new daily driver, and I was considering the Dart GT for a while, but after looking at the pricing and spec sheets on the Mazda 3s, I can't see how I would enjoy driving the GT more. Of course I'd prefer to wait for a test drive, but just spec to spec:

Dart GT
3297lbs
184hp @ 6250rpms
172tq @ 4800rpms
21/30mpg city/hwy

2014 Mazda 3s (available in Sept.)
3002lbs
184hp @ 5700rpms (up 17hp from 2013 2.5L)
185tq @ 3250rpms (up 17tq from 2013 2.5L)
28/37mpg city/hwy (up 6/8mpg from 2013 2.5L)

Well equipped, both have pretty similar feature sets at the $25-26k price point, although the Dart has more interior room and a much better touchscreen setup. However, I think the engine performance and efficiency marks alone just make the Dart a no-go for me.

It's not that the 2.4L Tigershark is a bad engine, but the new DI 2.5L in the Mazda3 is really amazingly good, the fuel economy is fantastic for the kind of power it puts out. Lots of torque at a fairly low RPM, and fuel economy within spitting distance of the best in class drivetrains that have significantly less performance.


Imagine the 2.4L Tigershark with another 15-20hp, another 15-20tq with a lower rpm peak, and providing 20% better gas mileage. That would push the Dart right past the whole compact class in performance while providing excellent fuel economy nearly on par with the 2.0L Tigershark, and would make a fantastic base engine for the Avenger and 200.

Anyway, I know, engineering engineering engineering, I know nothing about it. I'm told it's hard. Just fancy thinking here and wishing the Dart had an engine that would make choosing it a no-brainer in the compact class for a driving enthusiast like myself.
That would be great. My wife's DD is an Equinox with GM's DI 2.4. It's been fantastic so far, very peppy, and excellent fuel economy.
jerseyjoe said:
I
though that the poor quality of US gasoline fouled direct injection. Did GM ever cure their issue? my point is new engines cost $$$$$, should Chrysler join the engine of the month club?
It's recommended that top tier gas be used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,342 Posts
srt4evah said:
I think Mazda has the right idea right now with their 4-cylinders. Both are super efficient and both are being used across the model line, the new Mazda 6 in fact only offers the 2.5L and no other engine choice right now.

If a powerful enough, efficient enough 4-cylinder is built, it can be applied across a wide range of vehicles, as a base engine for mid-size and up and as a performance engine for the compact and below.

I know it's not cheap, I know it's not easy, but I'd hate to see Dodge be the last company in the market to do it. The Tigershark may be a fantastic engine relative to it's competitors in the non-DI class of engines, but it just doesn't seem to stand up to all the other (Mazda, Hyundai, Honda, etc.) direct injected 4-cylinders that push significantly more torque at lower rpms, while returning better fuel economy.

If it weren't for the wide availability of those fantastic new DI 4-cylinders, the Dart would be #1 on my shopping list today.
The Mazda 6 has that giant hood and is only a 2.5L 4 cyl?!?! You must be able to stand in the engine compartment to service the thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
824 Posts
Dave said:
I'd assume cost and keeping it exclusive to Alfa.

That said... I am not at all convinced the WGE was worth saving. I keep wondering what would have happened had they restarted with the Pentastar ... I guess the timeframe doesn't work. TigerShark still keeps seeming like, well, the Chrysler 200.

I am really hoping Chrysler has a crash four-cylinder program running, with Willem Weertman and some of the old Ramchargers crew coming in now and then to guide the hands of the youngsters...
Stratuscaster said:
Is the WGE still using Hyundai-design blocks? Are those Hyundai-sourced, too? If so, is there perhaps a contract that has not been fulfilled or has ended yet?
jimboy said:
Aren't the Hyundai/Kia engines based on the same block design? They have DI in their motors, why can't Chrysler borrow or develop a similar system for its world engines?
2.0-liter :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:
Codename: Hurricane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,109 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
lvelleq (o)llllll(o) said:
2.0-liter :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:
Codename: Hurricane.
Cool. Hope it can match up with the 200hp DI Hyundai mill that's in the current Sonata, or the 200hp DI boxer in the Subaru BRZ.

200hp in a Dart with 27/38mpg rating would be a big step in the right direction. Not class-leading, but near the top at least. Dart can't overcome the weight penalty it has in comparison with the compact class, but it would be nice if it had a competitive drivetrain at the upper end.

The Mazda 3s gets 30% better gas mileage with similar displacement and 6-speed auto transmission with a good deal more torque than the GT.

Rumors have been that the next gen Mazdaspeed3 would feature a 2.0L DI engine making upwards of 200hp. Would be cool if the Dart R/T came to life with a Hurricane making over 200hp that features competitive gas mileage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
lvelleq (o)llllll(o) said:
2.0-liter :ninja: :ninja: :ninja:
Codename: Hurricane.
That's good to hear. I just hope it's a more significant upgrade than the "tiger shark" program. I was expecting more out of that updated 2.4l. Perhaps it is just serving as a stop gap?
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top